Republicans seek repeal of ‘green fuel’ requirement for military tanks, choppers and jets

A Republican plan to empower the military to buy coal-based fuels for its planes and tanks drew criticism today from an Obama administration official and a key Senate Democrat.

The proposal, sponsored by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., aims to undo a provision in the 2007 energy law that bars the federal government from buying alternative or synthetic fuels for transportation if they would produce more lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than conventional petroleum-based options.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski on the campaign trail in Alaska. (AP poto)

The so-called section 526 provision was designed largely to block the Defense Department from buying coal-based jet fuels, but critics now believe it could bar the federal government from using gasoline and other fuels made with Canadian oil sands crude, because it emits more greenhouse gases than petroleum-based options.

The Canadian oil sands crude is a better option for the U.S. than imports from hostile foreign nations, argued Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, at an Energy and Natural Resources hearing this morning.

“When it comes to meeting the power our energy needs, it is important we focus on North America,” Murkowski said, adding that she was “concerned” the 2007 energy law’s prohibition would “severely limit our options.”

Murkowski added that with oil prices high, a recovering U.S. economy and instable foreign crude supplies, it doesn’t make sense to needlessly “restrict the types of alternative fuels that the federal government and particularly our military can pursue.”

“If we’re blocked from obtaining this oil, it seems to me it’s going to go to China,” Barrasso said, seizing on a New York Times report that energy companies are looking at alternative markets for selling oil sands crude produced in Alberta, Canada.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he was “concerned” about the “high environmental cost” of the bill.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (AP photo)

“I hope that we can focus on ways to enhance national, economic and environmental security simultaneously, and avoid policies that might sacrifice any one kind of security in pursuit of another,” Bingaman added.

The Obama administration hasn’t officially weighed in on Barrasso’s bill. But Deputy Assistant Energy Secretary Steven Chalk told the Senate panel today that repealing the section 526 provision would move the U.S. in the wrong direction.

“If we’re going to address climate change, the federal government needs to take leadership here,” Chalk said. “And repealing that would reverse that leadership.”

Chalk said the administration supports a diverse array of fuels: “We want diversification. We don’t like petroleum. We don’t want to be dependent on one type of feedstock.”

Particularly attractive fuels have a lower environmental impact while offering energy security and less greenhouse gas emissions, Chalk said. He stressed that the U.S. wants to trend away from heavy emitting fuels.

That won a rebuke from Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a coal advocate.

“We want jobs and we want an economy and we want to be able to compete,” Manchin shot back.

But Chalk insisted that “all of these goals are mutual,” and the U.S. can reduce greenhouse gases while improving the economy.